View Single Post
Old
01-28-2013, 03:06 PM
  #85
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
 
RussellmaniaKW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone for your jar View Post
To the bolded part: if the Bruins' success (and by this I assume you refer to the Cup two seasons ago) nullifies the need for any improvements, then the same applies to any other characteristic of the roster: who cares how much scoring skill they have? Who cares how good the goalies are? Who cares how fit they are?



The fact that it made sense to trade size (mind you, in Wheeler's case, it was size that for the most part he did not use) for speed a couple of years ago to address a glaring deficit (we were slooow) doesn't mean that today we should overlook potential deficits in size in certain key positions. This isn't an either/or thing, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Size (and to be more precise: effective size that facilitates moving bodies out of the way, staying in place in front of the net, and possibly intimidation) will always be relevant; speed will always be relevant; and skill will always be relevant. Our first line, two seasons ago, was endowed with a tremendous amount of effective size. Whether that continues to be the case, in the wake of Horton's concussion issues, remains an open question mark. Our second line doesn't have great size but makes up for it via tenacity (Marchy & Bergy) and tremendous strength on the stick (Bergy). Our third line currently has a small left winger. Again, whether this means he will "play small" remains an open question. The fourth line is fine, size-wise. My point is that this is a case-by-case, line-by-line question.

Do the B's have less need to acquire size than most other teams? Yes. Does this mean that the team would not be improved by the acquisition of more size at certain positions? No. Does the fact that we could be improved by more size at certain positions mean that size trumps all other considerations, and we can stop looking for speed and skill? No and no!
Well the jury is still out on Bourque, but I think he has played well so far and I guess my rebuttal to the OP is that if that slot is the only place where we can try and get bigger in the near-term I would argue that we'd be hard pressed to find someone who is 6'3 and has Bourque's skillset without having to give up significant assets. I mean yeah it would be nice to get bigger, but I don't see it as a pressing need just yet and I really don't see it as something that we can afford to get an upgrade on.

Colt mentioned going after Nino for the 3rd line slot and while it would be great to have a talent like him in the system, I haven't seen anything out of him to suggest that he would make this team right now even if we did acquire him.

RussellmaniaKW is offline   Reply With Quote